No Time To Die: Production Diary

13413423443463472507

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,707
    Any day! :D
  • talos7 wrote: »
    Like the franchise, this thread is wandering with no direction... ;)

    Much like Eon Productions these days.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,315
    Or MGM... 8-|
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Or MGM... 8-|

    True enough.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Nah I think it's ok ...we're just deconstructing in hopes EoN rebuilds.. I guess it's more therapeutic than constructive or actually on topic. But whomever said it is right there is no rumors or news to discuss...

    *sigh* ...I guess after the high of SF whether you liked it or not and going through all the delay and leaks ordeal only to get what some loved and others feared coupled with some BO disappointed has many just in a slump.

    Just a frustrating time for many ...plus now no news no distributor and we don't even know if we still have a Bond or not...

    It's enough to drive one nuts...
  • SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.
  • Posts: 16
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.
  • Posts: 11,119
    "SPECTRE" isn't as good as "Skyfall" or "Casino Royale", but to me it's still a wonderful follow-up to the storyline that was started in 2006.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    talos7 wrote: »
    yes and it perpetuates the urban legend that Elba was, or is actually, being considered.

    Mind you, Amy Pascal did champion Elba as being the next Bond.
  • Posts: 1,443
    "SPECTRE" isn't as good as "Skyfall" or "Casino Royale", but to me it's still a wonderful follow-up to the storyline that was started in 2006.

    I agree. I just feel they got the Blofeld reveal the wrong way round. They should have set-up Blofeld like Dr.No, a mystery figure who Bond needs to track down, and then the reveal should have been his true identity and connection to Bond.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2016 Posts: 9,117
    SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.

    Is good old Kevin McClory to blame for all this as usual?

    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.

    If EON had managed to acquire the rights pre CR then SPECTRE could have been hinted at when they killed Le Chiffre, named in QOS (with maybe a classic scene of Blofeld in shadow ordering someone to kill Greene in the desert for his ineptitude), hinted at or even named as being Silva's backer before we end up with the events of SP.
    RobNRaz3 wrote: »
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.

    That's one of my chief concerns for the series moving forward too.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Murdock wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The more I read and think about this thread, the more of a disaster it seems. ;)

    Can't argue with that. It's been a serious dry spell in terms of news lately, and the thread has inevitably turned into SPECTRE deconstruction mode.

    Some expect grand news so soon. I think a little patience is order. We didn't get a sliver of information on Spectre until late 2014. I don't expect to get any significant news within this year.

    In October 2012 they made it known that they were planning to release Spectre in November 2014 and that John Logan was writing the script - that's the month that Skyfall came out. Yes, it turned out to come out in 2015 due to waiting for Mendes, but that's still more than we have now - a planned release date and a writer on board.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited August 2016 Posts: 4,116
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The more I read and think about this thread, the more of a disaster it seems. ;)

    Can't argue with that. It's been a serious dry spell in terms of news lately, and the thread has inevitably turned into SPECTRE deconstruction mode.

    Some expect grand news so soon. I think a little patience is order. We didn't get a sliver of information on Spectre until late 2014. I don't expect to get any significant news within this year.

    In October 2012 they made it known that they were planning to release Spectre in November 2014 and that John Logan was writing the script - that's the month that Skyfall came out. Yes, it turned out to come out in 2015 due to waiting for Mendes, but that's still more than we have now - a planned release date and a writer on board.

    Yea, they're not even talking about it except time away. Craig is silent too. MGM also just says later ..and they seem shocked that no one likes their distribution demands much less their movies.
  • I don't see a problem with this thread. It's a nice location for general discussion on B25 and the current state of the franchise.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,425
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    We need another Brosnan like we all need a bullet in the head. Never again, lord help us!

    Agreed. I thought he delivered in GE but actually got worse and more self conscious with each next film. Some of his emoting in TWINE is painful to watch. Brosnan is actually my least favourite Bond, yes, even after Lazenby.

    And re: Lazenby. I love OHMSS and think he serves the film extremely well. I find it best to watch the film in isolation. I did a FRWL and OHMSS double bill once, and back to back with Connery, Lazenby does suffer, but watched on its own, for me, he does a fine job at showing a more human and vulnerable Bond - and he never emotes.

    Wholeheartedly agree with everything you say, except I'd argue that Brosnan's performance in GE is as bad, if not worse than in TND. Probably don't need to repeat my views on Brosnan here again, but for those who haven't heard them before... Hang on, that's actually no one on here.

    So, moving on.

    To be fair to Laz, almost everyone suffers in comparison to Connery. I might love Sir Rog, but in the cold light of day, he can't really hold a candle to Sean at his peak. I'd say the same of Dalts as well. Craig for my money, while very good at times, is currently rather overrated. Once he's gone, all this talk of 'better than Connery' will subside. He's good - but not THAT good.

    So, IMO, Laz in OHMSS remains one of the absolute stand out Bond performances.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Brosnan matured nicely into the role in TND. TND was intended to be a straightforward Bond adventure to help cement the franchise's return. Brosnan's performance exhibited a great deal more confidence in TND than GE. Just compare the BJB lines in both.
  • Posts: 6,615
    I though his delivery of the BJB line in GE was very forced! I expected Onatopp to reply "No you're not ,you're that bloke off that crappy TV series Remington Steele!"
    In TND you say confidence, i say smugness!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I thought Brosnan was quite good in the earlier half of TND, but I believe his performance (and the film) collapses about 1/2 way through Hamburg, but really goes downhill after Kaufmann is killed. From that point onwards he gave us his version of Bond, which is one I have no time for. I think he improved markedly in DAD, but by then, the damage had been done, at least from my perspective.
    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.
    Agreed, and we really are in a sad state of affairs as a result.

    I may be in the minority, but I was quite happy with how Quantum was rolled out in QoS (starting with the hint of a larger nefarious entity in CR). It looked like they were going to give us something Spectre-'like', but tweaked for the 21st Century. It was an intriguing prospect. Even the Bregenz Opera meeting was a modern twist on something familiar. The fact that it was a different organization gave them the creative license to be daring. Sadly, when they got the SPECTRE rights back, they succumbed instead to familiar tropes, including 'killing of operatives at big tables' and 'rings' and what not.

    Damn shame. Now that they've clearly botched this reintroduction, I hope they just forget about Blofeld for another 30 years.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig for my money, while very good at times, is currently rather overrated. Once he's gone, all this talk of 'better than Connery' will subside. He's good - but not THAT good.
    Agreed. I think he's overrated. For my money, he delivered one absolutely standout performance in CR which ranks with the best of them. He was excellent in QoS, and decent enough in SF. However, in my view, he was mediocre at best in SP.
    Getafix wrote: »
    So, IMO, Laz in OHMSS remains one of the absolute stand out Bond performances.
    Yes, I agree that it was a very good performance, but the film, score, supporting cast, location work and direction were absolutely first class as well, and that helps cast a positive light on his contribution (just as GE's excellent direction, plot and supporting cast helped to cast a positive light on Brosnan).
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I thought Brosnan was quite good in the earlier half of TND, but I believe his performance (and the film) collapses about 1/2 way through Hamburg, but really goes downhill after Kaufmann is killed. From that point onwards he gave us his version of Bond, which is one I have no time for. I think he improved markedly in DAD, but by then, the damage had been done, at least from my perspective.
    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.
    Agreed, and we really are in a sad state of affairs as a result.

    I may be in the minority, but I was quite happy with how Quantum was rolled out in QoS (starting with the hint of a larger nefarious entity in CR). It looked like they were going to give us something Spectre-'like', but tweaked for the 21st Century. It was an intriguing prospect. Even the Bregenz Opera meeting was a modern twist on something familiar. The fact that it was a different organization gave them the creative license to be daring. Sadly, when they got the SPECTRE rights back, they succumbed instead to familiar tropes, including 'killing of operatives at big tables' and 'rings' and what not.

    Damn shame. Now that they've clearly botched this reintroduction, I hope they just forget about Blofeld for another 30 years.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig for my money, while very good at times, is currently rather overrated. Once he's gone, all this talk of 'better than Connery' will subside. He's good - but not THAT good.
    Agreed. I think he's overrated. For my money, he delivered one absolutely standout performance in CR which ranks with the best of them. He was excellent in QoS, and decent enough in SF. However, in my view, he was mediocre at best in SP.
    Getafix wrote: »
    So, IMO, Laz in OHMSS remains one of the absolute stand out Bond performances.
    Yes, I agree that it was a very good performance, but the film, score, supporting cast, location work and direction were absolutely first class as well, and that helps cast a positive light on his contribution (just as GE's excellent direction, plot and supporting cast helped to cast a positive light on Brosnan).

    I agree with most of that. I haven't seen TND in ages so I'm not sure how I remember the second half of that film.
  • SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.

    Is good old Kevin McClory to blame for all this as usual?

    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.

    If EON had managed to acquire the rights pre CR then SPECTRE could have been hinted at when they killed Le Chiffre, named in QOS (with maybe a classic scene of Blofeld in shadow ordering someone to kill Greene in the desert for his ineptitude), hinted at or even named as being Silva's backer before we end up with the events of SP.
    RobNRaz3 wrote: »
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.

    That's one of my chief concerns for the series moving forward too.

    An alrernate view is that Quantum shouldn't have existed. It's clear, imo, that they only did it after the backlash to the title anyway (which to me makes the whole it's such a great deep title argument redundant, they didn't even have the balls to stick by it). They only get mentioned by name once, don't they? By Greene in the desert. Change that line to "I told you everything you wanted to know about them", keep them as the mysterious "organisation" and then they could easily just be revealed Spectre in SP. Silva just shouldn't have been tied to them at all imo. There was enough linking SF to the overarching story (MI6 blowing up, M's death), there was no need to make Silva (a very personally motivated villain) a Spectre agent.

    I honestly thought that's where they were going with it in CR. I assumed they were planning on getting the rights back or something and until then were just going to allude to them. McClory's death I thought would make this even easier but instead they came up with Quantum.
  • SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.

    Is good old Kevin McClory to blame for all this as usual?

    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.

    If EON had managed to acquire the rights pre CR then SPECTRE could have been hinted at when they killed Le Chiffre, named in QOS (with maybe a classic scene of Blofeld in shadow ordering someone to kill Greene in the desert for his ineptitude), hinted at or even named as being Silva's backer before we end up with the events of SP.
    RobNRaz3 wrote: »
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.

    That's one of my chief concerns for the series moving forward too.

    An alrernate view is that Quantum shouldn't have existed. It's clear, imo, that they only did it after the backlash to the title anyway (which to me makes the whole it's such a great deep title argument redundant, they didn't even have the balls to stick by it). They only get mentioned by name once, don't they? By Greene in the desert. Change that line to "I told you everything you wanted to know about them", keep them as the mysterious "organisation" and then they could easily just be revealed Spectre in SP. Silva just shouldn't have been tied to them at all imo. There was enough linking SF to the overarching story (MI6 blowing up, M's death), there was no need to make Silva (a very personally motivated villain) a Spectre agent.

    I honestly thought that's where they were going with it in CR. I assumed they were planning on getting the rights back or something and until then were just going to allude to them. McClory's death I thought would make this even easier but instead they came up with Quantum.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The more I read and think about Spectre, the more of a disaster it seems.

    It is this community that is a disaster.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I thought Brosnan was quite good in the earlier half of TND, but I believe his performance (and the film) collapses about 1/2 way through Hamburg, but really goes downhill after Kaufmann is killed. From that point onwards he gave us his version of Bond, which is one I have no time for. I think he improved markedly in DAD, but by then, the damage had been done, at least from my perspective.
    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.
    Agreed, and we really are in a sad state of affairs as a result.

    I may be in the minority, but I was quite happy with how Quantum was rolled out in QoS (starting with the hint of a larger nefarious entity in CR). It looked like they were going to give us something Spectre-'like', but tweaked for the 21st Century. It was an intriguing prospect. Even the Bregenz Opera meeting was a modern twist on something familiar. The fact that it was a different organization gave them the creative license to be daring. Sadly, when they got the SPECTRE rights back, they succumbed instead to familiar tropes, including 'killing of operatives at big tables' and 'rings' and what not.

    Damn shame. Now that they've clearly botched this reintroduction, I hope they just forget about Blofeld for another 30 years.
    Getafix wrote: »
    Craig for my money, while very good at times, is currently rather overrated. Once he's gone, all this talk of 'better than Connery' will subside. He's good - but not THAT good.
    Agreed. I think he's overrated. For my money, he delivered one absolutely standout performance in CR which ranks with the best of them. He was excellent in QoS, and decent enough in SF. However, in my view, he was mediocre at best in SP.
    Getafix wrote: »
    So, IMO, Laz in OHMSS remains one of the absolute stand out Bond performances.
    Yes, I agree that it was a very good performance, but the film, score, supporting cast, location work and direction were absolutely first class as well, and that helps cast a positive light on his contribution (just as GE's excellent direction, plot and supporting cast helped to cast a positive light on Brosnan).

    Totally agree regarding TND. It's always been my 'favourite' Brosnan movie.

    Regarding GE, I don't Understand its appeal at all. To this day I find it painful to watch for more than five minutes at a time.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2016 Posts: 9,117
    SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.

    Is good old Kevin McClory to blame for all this as usual?

    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.

    If EON had managed to acquire the rights pre CR then SPECTRE could have been hinted at when they killed Le Chiffre, named in QOS (with maybe a classic scene of Blofeld in shadow ordering someone to kill Greene in the desert for his ineptitude), hinted at or even named as being Silva's backer before we end up with the events of SP.
    RobNRaz3 wrote: »
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.

    That's one of my chief concerns for the series moving forward too.

    An alrernate view is that Quantum shouldn't have existed. It's clear, imo, that they only did it after the backlash to the title anyway (which to me makes the whole it's such a great deep title argument redundant, they didn't even have the balls to stick by it). They only get mentioned by name once, don't they? By Greene in the desert. Change that line to "I told you everything you wanted to know about them", keep them as the mysterious "organisation" and then they could easily just be revealed Spectre in SP. Silva just shouldn't have been tied to them at all imo. There was enough linking SF to the overarching story (MI6 blowing up, M's death), there was no need to make Silva (a very personally motivated villain) a Spectre agent.

    I honestly thought that's where they were going with it in CR. I assumed they were planning on getting the rights back or something and until then were just going to allude to them. McClory's death I thought would make this even easier but instead they came up with Quantum.

    Agree about them naming the organisation 'Quantum' merely as a sop to retards who couldn't get their head round a title that didn't have 'Kill' or 'Die' in the title.

    I agree with you that best way to get round it is just to cough so you can't hear when Greene says 'Quantum'. That way SP makes a lot more sense.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 2,115
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The more I read and think about this thread, the more of a disaster it seems. ;)

    Can't argue with that. It's been a serious dry spell in terms of news lately, and the thread has inevitably turned into SPECTRE deconstruction mode.

    Some expect grand news so soon. I think a little patience is order. We didn't get a sliver of information on Spectre until late 2014. I don't expect to get any significant news within this year.

    In October 2012 they made it known that they were planning to release Spectre in November 2014 and that John Logan was writing the script - that's the month that Skyfall came out. Yes, it turned out to come out in 2015 due to waiting for Mendes, but that's still more than we have now - a planned release date and a writer on board.

    Yes, they let it be known that Logan was writing. This was announced on an MGM investor/analyst call in November 2012

    A Sony executive earlier said it'd come out in 2014 but Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig publicly slapped him down.

    2012 Collider.com interview with Broccoli and Craig

    http://collider.com/daniel-craig-barbara-broccoli-skyfall-interview/#more-162975

    Excerpt:

    Last week Rory, the president of distribution of Sony, announced Bond 24 for I guess late 2014…

    Broccoli: He was getting a little overexcited (laughs). We’re just actually focusing on this movie. One hopes that in the future we’ll be announcing other films, but no one’s officially announced it.

    Craig: No one’s announced anything. He got a little ahead of himself (laughs). It’s very nice that he has the confidence to be able to do that, but we haven’t finished this movie yet.
    (end excerpt)

    MGM boss Gary Barber was more flexible on the subject. On the same conference call where he announced Logan's hiring, he was asked when Bond 24 would come out. “If not in ’14, certainly in ’15,” he said.


  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.

    Is good old Kevin McClory to blame for all this as usual?

    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.

    If EON had managed to acquire the rights pre CR then SPECTRE could have been hinted at when they killed Le Chiffre, named in QOS (with maybe a classic scene of Blofeld in shadow ordering someone to kill Greene in the desert for his ineptitude), hinted at or even named as being Silva's backer before we end up with the events of SP.
    RobNRaz3 wrote: »
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.

    That's one of my chief concerns for the series moving forward too.

    An alrernate view is that Quantum shouldn't have existed. It's clear, imo, that they only did it after the backlash to the title anyway (which to me makes the whole it's such a great deep title argument redundant, they didn't even have the balls to stick by it). They only get mentioned by name once, don't they? By Greene in the desert. Change that line to "I told you everything you wanted to know about them", keep them as the mysterious "organisation" and then they could easily just be revealed Spectre in SP. Silva just shouldn't have been tied to them at all imo. There was enough linking SF to the overarching story (MI6 blowing up, M's death), there was no need to make Silva (a very personally motivated villain) a Spectre agent.

    I honestly thought that's where they were going with it in CR. I assumed they were planning on getting the rights back or something and until then were just going to allude to them. McClory's death I thought would make this even easier but instead they came up with Quantum.

    Agree about them naming the organisation 'Quantum' merely as a sop to retards who couldn't get their head round a title that didn't have 'Kill' or 'Die' in the title.

    I agree with you that best way to get round it is just to cough so you can't hear when Greene says 'Quantum'. That way SP makes a lot more sense.

    Can t it be called both? I doubt the name is trademarked, or that it is an official company name on the stock exchange.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SP would have fared better if it had come out after CR. Then the 'mysterious organisation' alluded to in CR is not Quantum.

    Is good old Kevin McClory to blame for all this as usual?

    EON clearly only came up with Quantum because they didn't have the rights to SPECTRE at that point. Once they got the rights they decided to retroactively cobble everything together which led us to the current clusterf**k.

    If EON had managed to acquire the rights pre CR then SPECTRE could have been hinted at when they killed Le Chiffre, named in QOS (with maybe a classic scene of Blofeld in shadow ordering someone to kill Greene in the desert for his ineptitude), hinted at or even named as being Silva's backer before we end up with the events of SP.
    RobNRaz3 wrote: »
    I wonder if BBC One should premiere Spectre rather than ITV? Like Marvel films.

    That's one of my chief concerns for the series moving forward too.

    An alrernate view is that Quantum shouldn't have existed. It's clear, imo, that they only did it after the backlash to the title anyway (which to me makes the whole it's such a great deep title argument redundant, they didn't even have the balls to stick by it). They only get mentioned by name once, don't they? By Greene in the desert. Change that line to "I told you everything you wanted to know about them", keep them as the mysterious "organisation" and then they could easily just be revealed Spectre in SP. Silva just shouldn't have been tied to them at all imo. There was enough linking SF to the overarching story (MI6 blowing up, M's death), there was no need to make Silva (a very personally motivated villain) a Spectre agent.

    I honestly thought that's where they were going with it in CR. I assumed they were planning on getting the rights back or something and until then were just going to allude to them. McClory's death I thought would make this even easier but instead they came up with Quantum.

    Agree about them naming the organisation 'Quantum' merely as a sop to retards who couldn't get their head round a title that didn't have 'Kill' or 'Die' in the title.

    I agree with you that best way to get round it is just to cough so you can't hear when Greene says 'Quantum'. That way SP makes a lot more sense.

    The shoehorning in of Spectre was definitley a waste. But it doesn't annoy me quite as much as it does you guys.

    Bond movie continuity has always been all over the place. Different actors and the bizarre lack of antagonism towards Blofeld in DAF all trump the stupidity of SP IMo.

    Problem with SF and SP is that Mendes is too much of a kid in a sweet shop and he just couldn't resist his fanboy moments. He had the chance to use SP and Blofeld and just wasted them.

    That said, I still quite enjoyed SP as a movie.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    edited August 2016 Posts: 754
    SP is an unfinished, uneven, movie. I like a lot about it too. It's enjoyable if you're open, annoying mess if you're not. Like all Mendes work, it doesnt lend itself to easily repeated viewings.

    EON should be making better movies. I like them, I wish them well, I hope they can do better, but they should be doing better.

    Daniel Craig is not overrated as an actor or as Bond. He's been undermined by writing, directing and producing (some of this blame he does share, most to EON).

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,176
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    Like all Mendes work, it does lend itself to easily repeated viewings.

    The only work of Mendes' that I've been able to rewatch with ease was 'American Beauty'; it's almost a chore to sit through SF and SP again.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    bondjames wrote: »
    I may be in the minority, but I was quite happy with how Quantum was rolled out in QoS (starting with the hint of a larger nefarious entity in CR). It looked like they were going to give us something Spectre-'like', but tweaked for the 21st Century. It was an intriguing prospect. Even the Bregenz Opera meeting was a modern twist on something familiar. The fact that it was a different organization gave them the creative license to be daring. Sadly, when they got the SPECTRE rights back, they succumbed instead to familiar tropes, including 'killing of operatives at big tables' and 'rings' and what not.

    Damn shame. Now that they've clearly botched this reintroduction, I hope they just forget about Blofeld for another 30 years.
    I'm right there with you. Never had a problem with Quantum. In fact, I was really looking forward to seeing who Bond would find at the top, running an organization of such tremendous power and influence. Then SP came out and retconned the whole thing to Blofeld and Spectre. It just felt like a huge slap in the face to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.